Krzysztof Gwizdała’s Final Victory. Supreme Administrative Court Dismisses Parish’s Complaint Concerning the Bells

The judgment was issued on September 8, 2026, at a closed hearing. The case, registered under III OSK 3293/23, was heard by a three-judge panel of the Supreme Administrative Court. The court dismissed the cassation complaint concerning the determination of the permissible noise level during the daytime.

This means that the judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Wrocław of August 17, 2023, remains in force. At that time, the PAC dismissed the parish’s complaint against the decision of the Local Government Appeals Board in Jelenia Góra, which upheld the ruling of the Bolesławiec county head concerning noise emitted by the church bells.

From a Neighbor’s Request to a Final Judgment

The case was initiated in 2021 by Krzysztof Gwizdała, editor-in-chief of the istotne.pl portal and a resident of the Jana Pawła II housing estate. He first contacted the parish directly. He asked it to limit the duration or frequency of ringing the bells, which sounded even several times a day. He received no response, so he notified the institutions responsible for environmental protection.

The first proceedings conducted by the Bolesławiec County Office were discontinued. Gwizdała did not give up and appealed to the Local Government Appeals Board. The Board overturned the decision and ordered the case to be reconsidered and measurements to be carried out.

Tests carried out by specialists showed that the standards were exceeded at two of the three points. They recorded 65.9 dB against a permissible level of 55 dB, and 63.1 dB in an area where the standard was 50 dB.

County head Tomasz Gabrysiak subsequently issued a decision obliging the parish to limit noise emissions. He did not prohibit the use of the bells. He only ordered their volume to be adjusted to the applicable regulations.

Parish Loses Before the PAC and SAC

The parish challenged the decision, arguing, among other things, that a church is not an “establishment” within the meaning of environmental protection law and that the use of bells remains connected with the practice of religious worship.

The Provincial Administrative Court did not accept this argument. It held that the belfry, together with the bell mechanism, is an installation emitting noise, and that complying with generally applicable standards does not violate religious freedom. The court also emphasized that the decision does not eliminate the possibility of using the belfry—it only requires compliance with the parameters specified by law.

The parish filed a cassation complaint. It sought to have the judgment set aside and the case reconsidered. However, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the complaint.

Five Years of Persistent Effort

The SAC’s decision is a personal success for Krzysztof Gwizdała, whose determination initiated the entire proceedings. If he had not appealed after the initial discontinuation of the case, noise measurements might never have been conducted.

The case also shows that an individual resident can effectively demand compliance with regulations—even when proceedings last for years and require appeals to successive authorities and courts.

The bells at the Church of Christ the King have been silent for some time. The final conclusion of the proceedings does not, however, mean that their use is prohibited. They may be rung, but the noise they emit must remain within the limits set by law.

We wrote about the earlier course of the five-year battle in the article: “Judgment in the bells case on September 8. Krzysztof Gwizdała talks about the five-year battle”.